He also emphasized the OR, which says, that he is not necessarily of the opinion, that he backs the fraud-accusations. Maybe he should clarify this.

I didn't mention anything about fraud no as there's no evidence of that, only that those coins were supposed to be locked up with no access as that is evidenced here in this thread. The only fraud I can see evidenced is Barry lied about locking those coins.

I have no idea why he was so fixated on the fraud part, if I believe someone is doing shady things then I will usually make that clearly known. Like with MF trying to get me to sweep Barry's debt under the rug and just let him keep my coins, or him offering me a fraction of my BTC back to leave it alone after so I wouldn't hurt his investment.

However, I would find it highly suspicious if the new dev is the one in control of those locked coins now.

Maybe barrysty1e was confident, that his solution would work and he made Mooncoin_Foundation and everyone else believe the same? But as the dev he should have known, that this is no 100% secure solution.

Either both overlooked, that Mooncoin is a Proof of Work-coin and thus has the weakness of a possible 51%-attack, which is what happened here? Or they ignored it and the "locking" of the coins was just marketing to drive the price?

A possible 51%-attack (and the relatively low hashrate needed to perform it, compared to the rates of LTC, DOGE etc. and in regard to the available massive amounts of hashing-power worldwide) was the reason, why I advised several times to implement other methods of securing the coin (PoS, hybrid, Proof of Human Work, mixed algos etc.). But nothing of this happened. It was more important to get a new logo several times, SmartLikes, MoonWord, lower block-rewards (to scare the miners even more away ...) and "locking" coins ...

i see too many people confused, I'll be very short: 1) about barryst1le look into Trust summary for barrysty “ agswinner 2017-05-11 0.00000000 Many jobs are incomplete, moonrush wallet for example, coinomi and electrum wallet,we have paid for having them, not so much, but we have something rather than nothing. Others dev for the same job demand a lot more!! This person is not a scammer! “ . The work done has an evident value higher than the requested amount ! (about 300usd).2) about 51% attack unrealistic and imaginative, mooncoin blockchain has never suffered an attack 51%. P. Vernon is the owner , he escaped to China with the private keys of the cold wallets of more than 50 coins (report 3 Fed Court) . On oct 2016 my alert of first coins moved “100 ml Mooncoin from account cryptsy moved to bleutrade. I think it's necessary to inform exchanges to freeze all the coins from the first two cryptsy addresses.

As is stated in the recent report, FED Court has the control of 8,421,008,915.0 MOON coins that have been gathered in this address 2M5kiseCXp6X5g75ZcWeo3BNsMYJxtDCzq

For the mooncoin community can you confirm that the first big addresses (2cLG2RzF6rDCtNws6We8o8avXs1grqARHU and 2FgWY2MjPn9AG3bhuRLH5mhCKyc17eVHRY) are under your control?

I am looking forward to a positive answer

Best regards

In archive of MF 16/10/2016 my discussion “....as you know, I'm the shareholder more damaged by the collapse of cryptsy and mr Robert Carey, Esq., Receivership Consultant Of Federal Court has not given me dettails, not clarify the situation concerning Moon addresses .As you know the largest address has been recently moved with a difference of 600 millions. This particular leads me to think that Vernon controls Mooncoin address. So i can not, for now, contribute massively, until this situation will be clear. ...”The report 3 Fed Court confirmed what was my suspicion..

PVernon have the private key , why a 51% attack to rewriting Two years of Blockchain?

Hi agswinner,

you know I appreciate your work and what you have done for Mooncoin (donations etc.).

But let me explain in detail, how the 51%-attack worked:barrysty1e wrote a new wallet-code, that was intended to prevent the one being in control of the private keys of the (believed to be) former Cryptsy-addresses (Vernon) could send them away. This works, if at least 51% of the mining-network uses this code. The coins are "locked".

Mooncoin is Open Source, so everyone can take its code and alter it the way, he/she likes. This ranges from the graphical surface up to its core-elements, like the hashing-algo and the such. Thus it is absolutely NO problem for an experienced coder, to take out the passages of the wallet code, that prevents the coins from the believed former Cryptsy-address to be sent. Now he only would need to make the rest of the network play by its (edit: his) rules, i.e. accept a transaction he sent from that address. Because all of the rest of the miners, namely the honest ones, follow the rules set by barry's wallet and would not use his altered code, he must "convince" them by his sheer majority of mining-power. Now as Mooncoin has a relatively low hashrate, compared to other PoW-coins, it is relatively cheap, to rent enough hashing-power, to "convince" the (honest) network, to accept the transactions sent by the attacker's code.

If the attacker has the majority of hashing-power, he does not need to rewrite the whole blockchain, but only "over-vote" the other honest miners to let the network accept his transaction, as he can now decide, which transactions are made final and which not, namely: written into the blockchain and be confirmed. In other words: as he wants his malicious txes to become part of the blockchain, he only needs to mine as long as needed with the majority of hashing power, until his txes have been fully confirmed, so cannot be reversed by other miners without investing the same or more of hashing-power to rewrite the blockchain regarding these transactions. Normally other miners/nodes accept the longest chain as the valid one and if they have those formerly invalid txes included/confirmed, won't revert them, but simply take over at the chain-position, where the attacker left and then just mine along from there, because for them this then is the most plausible chain, hence accepting the previously blocked-by-code transactions without knowing them to be wrong.

Everybody with a bit of knowledge could know right from the start, that this is a serious attacking-scenario, hence knew that it (edit: "locking") would almost surely not work in the long run, because - as I said earlier, it would only be a matter of time until it became profitable for the attacker to perform this attack. Most probably that is, why the attack was happening in the end of the markup-phase of the recent market-cycle, so that he could at least sell the ~17 bln coins, that where not sent to Vassilis' address, with a good profit at the highest prices possible for a longer time. See here for explanation of market: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/technical/04/050504.asp (I assume, you know of market cycles already, but as others are reading also, it helps to understand, how markets work, and why it happened now).

So to come back to what I said earlier: A 51%-attack is a VERY real attack-vector for any PoW-coin, even for BTC, but very unlikely, because it is THE coin with the highest hashrate, by far, so it is very unlikely an attacker would gain more profit by buying the hashrate for a 51%-attack, then by simply following the rules for mining. With comparatively low hash-rates, which - to be clear - Mooncoin has, I was constantly voting for mitigating this attack-scenario by working on mixed algos, PoS-component etc. And we still need this to do. The danger is exactly as high as before. This is, why many of the other smaller scrypt-coins moved to better security-models long ago.

Now to close my notes: if you argue, that there was no 51%-attack, then it would be best to let barry chime in and let him explain, how it was possible to unlock the coins, despite his efforts to "freeze/block them". As long as there is no better technical explanation, the 51%-attack is the best. Just remember, that it could be understood as part of a fraudulent action, to first tell the community, that these coins are locked, when - in effect - they are not.

Maybe another technical more savvy, independent user here could look at all this (especially the code) and explain it further.I'm open for serious discussion.

Good afternoon ! I believe that the best priority for Mooncoin community now must be the development. So, I will agree with daniel634.

Development needs a developer. So the first would be, that Vassilis clears the situation.

When this is done, Mooncoin should follow this roadmap:

1. Improving the security-model of Mooncoin2. Teaching the community how markets work, so that they can invest with confidence and not need to come back every day, to ask for development and marketing and/or cry about low prices and many coins in circulation. New features will not help anyone, if investors cannot be confident, that there is a capable, reliable developer, concentrating on the main aspects of serious development first and foremost3. Get the coin to bigger exchanges4. Teach the community to share info about Mooncoin and to use the coin, so more and more people can discover MOON as a perfect means to store and distribute wealth, without the complexity of coins like Ethereum, IOTA or other coins assumed to be the "bleeding edge". This can and must be done by explaining, that the relatively high circulating amount of MOON is not a bug, but a feature. It will make for a stable price in the future. Remember: many new people don't like to invest into a coin, that costs thousands of Dollars for one unit. Mooncoin is the ideal investment for newbies, because MOON are still cheap. It only needs to be reasonably communicated and it must be backed by a serious, honest and responsive developer, who is there, if problems arise - supported by the active community of course

If we want to achieve all this and want to make Mooncoin a serious contender to coins like DOGE or even LTC in terms of reputation and market capitalization, then we have enough work to do.

Mooncoin should be a classic, serious, secure alternative to other, more experimental and thus high-risk coins.

Look at it like this:The Moon means stability and reliability. So why not try to make Mooncoin kind of the "reserve" in the long run? Just as the Moon is the dependable companion for the Earth, which makes human existence possible; because without it, the Earth would not have enough stability to make any life possible.

Coinflow, I do not see any 51% attack, if it were so simple I would not be here. 51% attack is just a matter of convenience. you want to take possession of Satoshi Nakamoto BTC address? Actually hardware cost only is 7.623.786.501,55 usd + 13.625.659,00 usd (kWh consume) per day. you want to take possession of those mooncoin stolen? would you spend 100kusd ? to get 62blns not spendable?But Keep in mind that the dev can restore everything .....

Good afternoon ! I believe that the best priority for Mooncoin community now must be the development. So, I will agree with daniel634.

Hi Polemarhos888,

What was the outcome of your meeting with Vassillis?

Good afternoon. Vassilis said me again that he is waiting his lawyer's answer. Also, these coins will not be used for any reason. Now, the most important for Mooncoin is the development ! So, we need to see what can we do in this section.

Good afternoon ! I believe that the best priority for Mooncoin community now must be the development. So, I will agree with daniel634.

Development needs a developer. So the first would be, that Vassilis clears the situation.

When this is done, Mooncoin should follow this roadmap:

1. Improving the security-model of Mooncoin2. Teaching the community how markets work, so that they can invest with confidence and not need to come back every day, to ask for development and marketing and/or cry about low prices and many coins in circulation. New features will not help anyone, if investors cannot be confident, that there is a capable, reliable developer, concentrating on the main aspects of serious development first and foremost3. Get the coin to bigger exchanges4. Teach the community to share info about Mooncoin and to use the coin, so more and more people can discover MOON as a perfect means to store and distribute wealth, without the complexity of coins like Ethereum, IOTA or other coins assumed to be the "bleeding edge". This can and must be done by explaining, that the relatively high circulating amount of MOON is not a bug, but a feature. It will make for a stable price in the future. Remember: many new people don't like to invest into a coin, that costs thousands of Dollars for one unit. Mooncoin is the ideal investment for newbies, because MOON are still cheap. It only needs to be reasonably communicated and it must be backed by a serious, honest and responsive developer, who is there, if problems arise - supported by the active community of course

If we want to achieve all this and want to make Mooncoin a serious contender to coins like DOGE or even LTC in terms of reputation and market capitalization, then we have enough work to do.

Mooncoin should be a classic, serious, secure alternative to other, more experimental and thus high-risk coins.

Look at it like this:The Moon means stability and reliability. So why not try to make Mooncoin kind of the "reserve" in the long run? Just as the Moon is the dependable companion for the Earth, which makes human existence possible; because without it, the Earth would not have enough stability to make any life possible.

If there is a stolen money, then this is either a developer fraud, or a bad defense against hacker attacks.

That's why I voted for making Mooncoin more secure over and over again. But Mooncoin Foundation and some others blocked that - for example my suggestion of making MOON a PoS/PoW-hybrid coin or implementing another - more complex algo or technology - making it a little harder to attack Mooncoin, instead of spending development-power on MoonWord, SmartLikes and other relatively uninteresting things. If these really were interesting for the cryptoworld, the price would be much, much higher already - because as an investor you know an important rule: buy the rumor, sell the fact. Now we have the mess by setting wrong priorities.

I repeat it once again: If the basics of a coin don't work, then the rest is pointless.

@agswinner: I have been absent for a longer time for good reason. Part of it was to see, whether what I thought and warned you of, will come true. And it came true. Mooncoin was attacked and again some of the Mooncoin-people now are trying to draw the wrong conclusions (i.e "burning" coins).

How is burning the coins the "wrong conclusion"?

It censors coins again, just like it was done by trying to "lock" them.

Quote

As for the government trying to overtake: I did not mean a government like that of the U.S., but the government of the some here always trying to sell some peoples opinions as the truth and the "decision of the community".

It sounds like YOU are trying to sell the community

I'm only formulating my opinion and try to explain, how there is a better way to go forward.

Quote

Maybe you have not read the excerpt in full or did not understand it completely: the most important conclusion from that excerpt is, to not censor coins, because it undermines trust in a currency.

Yes, censoring does in fact undermine the trust in a currency.... Oh wait... Didn't the Bitcoin community vote to do just that?Let me explain to you what censoring is.... and is not....When a government or some hostile entity tries to manipulate and/or control an outcome. This is censoringWhen a community, collectively agrees to do something for the betterment of the community. This is NOT censoring

What did bitcoin do exactly to censor coins?First of all, there is a difference between censoring coins and censoring opinions. Then, what is the "betterment" of the community? The coin itself can not be held guilty for being used for fraudulent actions. Hence the punishment should only be directed to the one using it for these - AFTER a formal trial in the jurisdiction of that individual. If today the assumed coins of Vernon are blocked, then tomorrow your coins may be blocked, because you have another opinion than the majority of "the community", or because of "an error in the code".

Quote

As sad as it is, that these coins eventually will come to the market again and that previous owners don't want to buy their own coins again,

Explain to us WHY they should have to buy their own coins again? We want an answer!

They don't have to buy them again. Others can buy them instead.They only need to accept, that censoring coins is a dangerous precendence-case, that will make it possible again to block coins for any reason, especially if not ALL other coin-holders have been asked by an official election that is fool- and fraud-proof. Just imagine, these were your coins instead, you are the rightful owner, but cannot prove that those coins are wrongly blocked, by the decision of possibly shady devs or a "strange" community. The problem is the possible arbitrariness.

Quote

when they are correctly handed to the authorities,

How is stealing coins from the community and giving them to a court, to auction off to someone who didn't own them, the "correct" thing to do?In your own words... Exactly what makes the court/receiver an "authority", that is entitled to take coins away from rightful holders?

That is not the question.The question is, what jurisdiction is relevant for Vassilis and what are the rules there, to not become a criminal when acting.So, as said, for him living in a European country, it is highly likely that he must return obviously stolen goods to the relevant authority to not make himself part of the crime. Whether they can decide better what to do with the coins is not the question.

Quote

as good it is to show the cryptoworld, that Mooncoin has corrected the mistake it made.

Wow.... The level of arrogance/ignorance AND disrespect to EVERY member of the Moon community!YOUR statement insinuates that the Moon community is somehow responsible for Cryptsy stealing the 62 billion coins.That's like telling a rape victim that it is "her" fault that she got raped.

Why is this arrogant? Don't you think it is more like raping and being arrogant, if "the community" forces Vassilis to burn the coins, even if he becomes a criminal by doing this? Vassilis himself has not yet reported, what his lawyers recommend.If the coins would not have been "locked" in the first place, this problem would not have arisen.

Quote

There were others here before, who described this as a big problem. But they were ignored.And now everyone complains about Mooncoin "not taking off" and cries for "burning the coins" to make it go to the moon. Again a wrong path, which will make it even worse.

Considering many in the community as well as MANY people outside the community say there are too many Moon coins, you will have to share YOUR logic on how reducing the number of Moon coins will make things worse.

I have said that before in other words. It makes Mooncoin arbitrary. And this is what scares potential serious investors more away in the future, then what will be gained now by changing the code. If they can't rely on set standards, that is always bad.What happens, if the price does not rise significantly, after the coins are burned? Should the amount then gradually be reduced to 1 MOON by taking more and more coins out of the system by first "locking" them and then "burning" them? That is the opposite of seriousness and reliability of a currency and won't build up trust at all.

Quote

Btw: there are many others, that may not even post here, but are also part of "the community".I think everyone here is well aware that we are not the only community members.

I hinted to this, because in the past there have been some deadlines for some "decisions" set to two weeks or so (e.g. the logo). This is against all fairness for those members, because they would not even have a chance realize, that something like this is going on. For a serious discussion something this should be propagated everywhere possible and with a wide time frame, to make it possible for non-frequent readers/investors also possible to notice.

...and the text from there:"Prevent any transactions spending "stolen" coins, effectively destroying those coins. If the coins clearly are stolen, then there is a risk that this action will be accepted by the Bitcoin community, but this would set a very damaging precedent. If it becomes possible for coins to be blacklisted in this way, then it is a slippery slope toward blacklisting of other "suspicious" coins."

You took that above text out of context. You can't take a paragraph out of a story and claim it represents the whole story.

I even have linked the page, so everyone can read, in what context the excerpt is used originally. And it says exactly the same: A government should not censor (that means: block) coins. Be it the US-president (elected officially) or a coins dev (not even elected officially).

Please, everyone. I'm by no means against maximizing wealth for every (honest) owner of Mooncoin.But there are certain basics, that really should be mandatory, to not make Mooncoin and the underlying code only a disposable quantity to be altered if "the price is not right up to taste".

Coinflow, I do not see any 51% attack, if it were so simple I would not be here. 51% attack is just a matter of convenience. you want to take possession of Satoshi Nakamoto BTC address? Actually hardware cost only is 7.623.786.501,55 usd + 13.625.659,00 usd (kWh consume) per day. you want to take possession of those mooncoin stolen? would you spend 100kusd ? to get 62blns not spendable?But Keep in mind that the dev can restore everything .....

If a wallet blocks coins, the attacker only needs to be in control for the time he performs the attack, in order to overcome the limitation, which is what happened with Mooncoin. If he would want to try to move Satoshis coins, which are not blocked by code, he would need to rewrite the complete blockchain back to where the movements to Satoshis address happened. But even then he would not be in control of the coins as such, but could only rewrite the history of the blockchain that way, that the coins would remain in the original sender's address. As Satoshi most probably mined the most coins directly (like with mining into a wallet or likewise via P2Pool) those coins then would never be there at all. Because when they are mined directly to the own wallet, they are not transferred from one user/address to another, but they are created for the first time ever.

Again: For this kind of 51%-attack with Mooncoin, you won't need to rewrite the whole blockchain from the beginning, but only be in control of the majority of hashing-power, until the coins are successfully sent. Remember, unlike with Satoshis coins, the attacker was in control of the private key for the transferred coins' address, so it was relatively cheap for him to buy hashing-power to send the coins. Despite of these coins being "locked" (only in other user's wallet's code, which had no effect for his transaction), he could confirm it himself alone with his hashing-power, regardless of what the other nodes/miners were saying at that time. He simply dictated the "consensus" all alone and could write it into the blockchain. After this the others took over the majority again and were happily mining away this chain as if nothing happened.

Coinflow, I do not see any 51% attack, if it were so simple I would not be here. 51% attack is just a matter of convenience. you want to take possession of Satoshi Nakamoto BTC address? Actually hardware cost only is 7.623.786.501,55 usd + 13.625.659,00 usd (kWh consume) per day. you want to take possession of those mooncoin stolen? would you spend 100kusd ? to get 62blns not spendable?But Keep in mind that the dev can restore everything .....

If a wallet blocks coins, the attacker only needs to be in control for the time he performs the attack, in order to overcome the limitation, which is what happened with Mooncoin. If he would want to try to move Satoshis coins, which are not blocked by code, he would need to rewrite the complete blockchain back to where the movements to Satoshis address happened. But even then he would not be in control of the coins as such, but could only rewrite the history of the blockchain that way, that the coins would remain in the original sender's address. As Satoshi most probably mined the most coins directly (like with mining into a wallet or likewise via P2Pool) those coins then would never be there at all. Because when they are mined directly to the own wallet, they are not transferred from one user/address to another, but they are created for the first time ever.

Again: For this kind of 51%-attack with Mooncoin, you won't need to rewrite the whole blockchain from the beginning, but only be in control of the majority of hashing-power, until the coins are successfully sent. Remember, unlike with Satoshis coins, the attacker was in control of the private key for the transferred coins' address, so it was relatively cheap for him to buy hashing-power to send the coins. Despite of these coins being "locked" (only in other user's wallet's code, which had no effect for his transaction), he could confirm it himself alone with his hashing-power, regardless of what the other nodes/miners were saying at that time. He simply dictated the "consensus" all alone and could write it into the blockchain. After this the others took over the majority again and were happily mining away this chain as if nothing happened.

Yes Coinflow, but the dev can restore the valid chain...there are checkpoints etc...Obviously all atcoin will have to do innovation and research for increasingly secure systems , bitcoin included ( cfr. quantum computing ..) Again I do not see any attack 51%, the hash power substantially constant, 2 days ago probably someone has tried for ten hours..but it seems to have failed...

Coinflow, I do not see any 51% attack, if it were so simple I would not be here. 51% attack is just a matter of convenience. you want to take possession of Satoshi Nakamoto BTC address? Actually hardware cost only is 7.623.786.501,55 usd + 13.625.659,00 usd (kWh consume) per day. you want to take possession of those mooncoin stolen? would you spend 100kusd ? to get 62blns not spendable?But Keep in mind that the dev can restore everything .....

If a wallet blocks coins, the attacker only needs to be in control for the time he performs the attack, in order to overcome the limitation, which is what happened with Mooncoin. If he would want to try to move Satoshis coins, which are not blocked by code, he would need to rewrite the complete blockchain back to where the movements to Satoshis address happened. But even then he would not be in control of the coins as such, but could only rewrite the history of the blockchain that way, that the coins would remain in the original sender's address. As Satoshi most probably mined the most coins directly (like with mining into a wallet or likewise via P2Pool) those coins then would never be there at all. Because when they are mined directly to the own wallet, they are not transferred from one user/address to another, but they are created for the first time ever.

Again: For this kind of 51%-attack with Mooncoin, you won't need to rewrite the whole blockchain from the beginning, but only be in control of the majority of hashing-power, until the coins are successfully sent. Remember, unlike with Satoshis coins, the attacker was in control of the private key for the transferred coins' address, so it was relatively cheap for him to buy hashing-power to send the coins. Despite of these coins being "locked" (only in other user's wallet's code, which had no effect for his transaction), he could confirm it himself alone with his hashing-power, regardless of what the other nodes/miners were saying at that time. He simply dictated the "consensus" all alone and could write it into the blockchain. After this the others took over the majority again and were happily mining away this chain as if nothing happened.

Yes Coinflow, but the dev can restore the valid chain...there are checkpoints etc...Obviously all atcoin will have to do innovation and research for increasingly secure systems , bitcoin included ( cfr. quantum computing ..) Again I do not see any attack 51%, the hash power substantially constant, 2 days ago probably someone has tried for ten hours..but it seems to have failed...

Friends,

Why hashrate raise up to 290GH/s now Huh

is there any huge movement( billions moon coin) Huh

Anyone help to check ?

Br

I have checked the hashrate and daily mining blocks from cryptoid.info. I did not see any strange issue.

Coinflow, I do not see any 51% attack, if it were so simple I would not be here. 51% attack is just a matter of convenience. you want to take possession of Satoshi Nakamoto BTC address? Actually hardware cost only is 7.623.786.501,55 usd + 13.625.659,00 usd (kWh consume) per day. you want to take possession of those mooncoin stolen? would you spend 100kusd ? to get 62blns not spendable?But Keep in mind that the dev can restore everything .....

If a wallet blocks coins, the attacker only needs to be in control for the time he performs the attack, in order to overcome the limitation, which is what happened with Mooncoin. If he would want to try to move Satoshis coins, which are not blocked by code, he would need to rewrite the complete blockchain back to where the movements to Satoshis address happened. But even then he would not be in control of the coins as such, but could only rewrite the history of the blockchain that way, that the coins would remain in the original sender's address. As Satoshi most probably mined the most coins directly (like with mining into a wallet or likewise via P2Pool) those coins then would never be there at all. Because when they are mined directly to the own wallet, they are not transferred from one user/address to another, but they are created for the first time ever.

Again: For this kind of 51%-attack with Mooncoin, you won't need to rewrite the whole blockchain from the beginning, but only be in control of the majority of hashing-power, until the coins are successfully sent. Remember, unlike with Satoshis coins, the attacker was in control of the private key for the transferred coins' address, so it was relatively cheap for him to buy hashing-power to send the coins. Despite of these coins being "locked" (only in other user's wallet's code, which had no effect for his transaction), he could confirm it himself alone with his hashing-power, regardless of what the other nodes/miners were saying at that time. He simply dictated the "consensus" all alone and could write it into the blockchain. After this the others took over the majority again and were happily mining away this chain as if nothing happened.

Yes Coinflow, but the dev can restore the valid chain...there are checkpoints etc...Obviously all atcoin will have to do innovation and research for increasingly secure systems , bitcoin included ( cfr. quantum computing ..) Again I do not see any attack 51%, the hash power substantially constant, 2 days ago probably someone has tried for ten hours..but it seems to have failed...

Friends,

Why hashrate raise up to 290GH/s now Huh

is there any huge movement( billions moon coin) Huh

Anyone help to check ?

Br

A strong spiky rise in hashrate every now and then is not unusual for Mooncoin, 290GH/s is not so much, btw. That does not automatically mean a 51%-attack is going on. Most probably a miner tries out Mooncoin, to see what the returns are.

At the moment there is no real target for a "classical" 51%-attack against Mooncoin, that's right (see here: https://learncryptography.com/cryptocurrency/51-attack ). The interesting target was the locked coins, which was an easy one, because the attacker had the private key, could send the coins during the attack and sell them, when the price was in its highest phase of market-cycle. The question is, why he also sent ~62 bln to Vassilis' public address?

The dev can restore the chain? What about all the coins that have been sent in the meantime? You know what a rollback would mean.

There were 70 billion Moon stolen from Moon holders by Vernon, the guy who owned Cryptsy exchange. 8 billion were turned over to the receiver by Vernon's ex-wife. Those 8 billion were auctioned off and the money went into a fund for EVERYONE that lost coins stolen by Vernon.

Now... There are some idiots in here that keep insisting that the remaining 62 billion coins be turned over to the "authorities"What authorities? The receiver? And, just how exactly are they authorities, that would be entitled to those 62 billion coins?

The coins that were returned, belong to the Moon community, NOT Vassilis, and not the court and/or receiver.Just because a "few" coin holders joined the lawsuit, does mean that courts can take and sell the coins from the rest of the coin holders...That is theft....

So idiots like Coinflow need to stop telling the community that they need Vassilis to give the coins to some "perceived" authority.

Please tell the community, why you need defamation of other (longtime) community members? As far as I remember, this was not necessary for several years in both of the Mooncoin threads.

So having said this, I assume you have a good reason for telling, that the believed-to-be Cryptsy-coins belong to "the community"?As far as I know, they still belong to Cryptsy (represented by the receiver), as part of their "insolvency estate" (edit: to be distributed among their claimants).

Coinflow, I do not see any 51% attack, if it were so simple I would not be here. 51% attack is just a matter of convenience. you want to take possession of Satoshi Nakamoto BTC address? Actually hardware cost only is 7.623.786.501,55 usd + 13.625.659,00 usd (kWh consume) per day. you want to take possession of those mooncoin stolen? would you spend 100kusd ? to get 62blns not spendable?But Keep in mind that the dev can restore everything .....

If a wallet blocks coins, the attacker only needs to be in control for the time he performs the attack, in order to overcome the limitation, which is what happened with Mooncoin. If he would want to try to move Satoshis coins, which are not blocked by code, he would need to rewrite the complete blockchain back to where the movements to Satoshis address happened. But even then he would not be in control of the coins as such, but could only rewrite the history of the blockchain that way, that the coins would remain in the original sender's address. As Satoshi most probably mined the most coins directly (like with mining into a wallet or likewise via P2Pool) those coins then would never be there at all. Because when they are mined directly to the own wallet, they are not transferred from one user/address to another, but they are created for the first time ever.

Again: For this kind of 51%-attack with Mooncoin, you won't need to rewrite the whole blockchain from the beginning, but only be in control of the majority of hashing-power, until the coins are successfully sent. Remember, unlike with Satoshis coins, the attacker was in control of the private key for the transferred coins' address, so it was relatively cheap for him to buy hashing-power to send the coins. Despite of these coins being "locked" (only in other user's wallet's code, which had no effect for his transaction), he could confirm it himself alone with his hashing-power, regardless of what the other nodes/miners were saying at that time. He simply dictated the "consensus" all alone and could write it into the blockchain. After this the others took over the majority again and were happily mining away this chain as if nothing happened.

Yes Coinflow, but the dev can restore the valid chain...there are checkpoints etc...Obviously all atcoin will have to do innovation and research for increasingly secure systems , bitcoin included ( cfr. quantum computing ..) Again I do not see any attack 51%, the hash power substantially constant, 2 days ago probably someone has tried for ten hours..but it seems to have failed...

Friends,

Why hashrate raise up to 290GH/s now Huh

is there any huge movement( billions moon coin) Huh

Anyone help to check ?

Br

A strong spiky rise in hashrate every now and then is not unusual for Mooncoin, 290GH/s is not so much, btw. That does not automatically mean a 51%-attack is going on. Most probably a miner tries out Mooncoin, to see what the returns are.

At the moment there is no real target for a "classical" 51%-attack against Mooncoin, that's right (see here: https://learncryptography.com/cryptocurrency/51-attack ). The interesting target was the locked coins, which was an easy one, because the attacker had the private key, could send the coins during the attack and sell them, when the price was in its highest phase of market-cycle. The question is, why he also sent ~62 bln to Vassilis' public address?

The dev can restore the chain? What about all the coins that have been sent in the meantime? You know what a rollback would mean.

Yes Coinflow, about rollback we have already discussed at the hacker attack on December 2014....

There were 70 billion Moon stolen from Moon holders by Vernon, the guy who owned Cryptsy exchange. 8 billion were turned over to the receiver by Vernon's ex-wife. Those 8 billion were auctioned off and the money went into a fund for EVERYONE that lost coins stolen by Vernon.

Now... There are some idiots in here that keep insisting that the remaining 62 billion coins be turned over to the "authorities"What authorities? The receiver? And, just how exactly are they authorities, that would be entitled to those 62 billion coins?

The coins that were returned, belong to the Moon community, NOT Vassilis, and not the court and/or receiver.Just because a "few" coin holders joined the lawsuit, does mean that courts can take and sell the coins from the rest of the coin holders...That is theft....

So idiots like Coinflow need to stop telling the community that they need Vassilis to give the coins to some "perceived" authority.

Please tell the community, why you need defamation of other (longtime) community members? As far as I remember, this was not necessary for several years in both of the Mooncoin threads.

So having said this, I assume you have a good reason for telling, that the believed-to-be Cryptsy-coins belong to "the community"?As far as I know, they still belong to Cryptsy (represented by the receiver), as part of their insolvency estate.

My opinion is that the most important thing now is the development. So, we can look at adding the proof of stake in the near future (for a more safe network). Of course, after hard fork.

Coinflow, I do not see any 51% attack, if it were so simple I would not be here. 51% attack is just a matter of convenience. you want to take possession of Satoshi Nakamoto BTC address? Actually hardware cost only is 7.623.786.501,55 usd + 13.625.659,00 usd (kWh consume) per day. you want to take possession of those mooncoin stolen? would you spend 100kusd ? to get 62blns not spendable?But Keep in mind that the dev can restore everything .....

If a wallet blocks coins, the attacker only needs to be in control for the time he performs the attack, in order to overcome the limitation, which is what happened with Mooncoin. If he would want to try to move Satoshis coins, which are not blocked by code, he would need to rewrite the complete blockchain back to where the movements to Satoshis address happened. But even then he would not be in control of the coins as such, but could only rewrite the history of the blockchain that way, that the coins would remain in the original sender's address. As Satoshi most probably mined the most coins directly (like with mining into a wallet or likewise via P2Pool) those coins then would never be there at all. Because when they are mined directly to the own wallet, they are not transferred from one user/address to another, but they are created for the first time ever.

Again: For this kind of 51%-attack with Mooncoin, you won't need to rewrite the whole blockchain from the beginning, but only be in control of the majority of hashing-power, until the coins are successfully sent. Remember, unlike with Satoshis coins, the attacker was in control of the private key for the transferred coins' address, so it was relatively cheap for him to buy hashing-power to send the coins. Despite of these coins being "locked" (only in other user's wallet's code, which had no effect for his transaction), he could confirm it himself alone with his hashing-power, regardless of what the other nodes/miners were saying at that time. He simply dictated the "consensus" all alone and could write it into the blockchain. After this the others took over the majority again and were happily mining away this chain as if nothing happened.

Yes Coinflow, but the dev can restore the valid chain...there are checkpoints etc...Obviously all atcoin will have to do innovation and research for increasingly secure systems , bitcoin included ( cfr. quantum computing ..) Again I do not see any attack 51%, the hash power substantially constant, 2 days ago probably someone has tried for ten hours..but it seems to have failed...

Friends,

Why hashrate raise up to 290GH/s now Huh

is there any huge movement( billions moon coin) Huh

Anyone help to check ?

Br

A strong spiky rise in hashrate every now and then is not unusual for Mooncoin, 290GH/s is not so much, btw. That does not automatically mean a 51%-attack is going on. Most probably a miner tries out Mooncoin, to see what the returns are.

At the moment there is no real target for a "classical" 51%-attack against Mooncoin, that's right (see here: https://learncryptography.com/cryptocurrency/51-attack ). The interesting target was the locked coins, which was an easy one, because the attacker had the private key, could send the coins during the attack and sell them, when the price was in its highest phase of market-cycle. The question is, why he also sent ~62 bln to Vassilis' public address?

The dev can restore the chain? What about all the coins that have been sent in the meantime? You know what a rollback would mean.

Yes Coinflow, about rollback we have already discussed at the hacker attack on December 2014....

There were 70 billion Moon stolen from Moon holders by Vernon, the guy who owned Cryptsy exchange. 8 billion were turned over to the receiver by Vernon's ex-wife. Those 8 billion were auctioned off and the money went into a fund for EVERYONE that lost coins stolen by Vernon.

Now... There are some idiots in here that keep insisting that the remaining 62 billion coins be turned over to the "authorities"What authorities? The receiver? And, just how exactly are they authorities, that would be entitled to those 62 billion coins?

The coins that were returned, belong to the Moon community, NOT Vassilis, and not the court and/or receiver.Just because a "few" coin holders joined the lawsuit, does mean that courts can take and sell the coins from the rest of the coin holders...That is theft....

So idiots like Coinflow need to stop telling the community that they need Vassilis to give the coins to some "perceived" authority.

Please tell the community, why you need defamation of other (longtime) community members? As far as I remember, this was not necessary for several years in both of the Mooncoin threads.

So having said this, I assume you have a good reason for telling, that the believed-to-be Cryptsy-coins belong to "the community"?As far as I know, they still belong to Cryptsy (represented by the receiver), as part of their insolvency estate.

My opinion is that the most important thing now is the development. So, we can look at adding the proof of stake in the near future (for a more safe network). Of course, after hard fork.

If you check below has 2 other params the number of transactions and the last block unix timestamp which never add in sum!This was a mistake by me... I will add again in some point but 1st i must calculate the amount of transactions until my last checkpoint!